from the that's-just-wrong dept

This happens every few months -- whenever there's a flare up of "bad behavior" on the internet. Some genius thinks he can solve everything by just "getting rid of online anonymity." The latest to step into this well trodden, widely debunked, canyon of ridiculousness... is Lance Ulanoff over at Mashable. He seems to think that he's the first person to seriously consider the idea of doing away with online anonymity, and it only serves to show that he's barely thought through the issue at all. First off, it's simply wrong to associate anonymous comments with trollish comments. Yes, some anonymous comments are trollish, but most are not. And, in fact, many trollish, harassing comments come from people who have their real names attached to them. This has been studied widely, but Ulanoff doesn't even bother to look for evidence, he just goes with his gut. The largest single platform for harassment online... has been Facebook, which famously requires "real names." That hasn't stopped harassment, and nor would it do so on Reddit.

Please, please, spare me all the privacy arguments. I know that each and every one of you is terrified that if your real names appear anywhere online, a cyber-crook will start wearing your identity like a cheap suit. Of course, you often forget that you’re sometimes complicit, in some fashion, in the crime: Answering phishing attack emails, using terrible passwords, not shredding your snail mail. Granted, sometimes the cyber thievery happens when hackers scoop up tons of private data on a third-party server.

Yes. This all happens. And I still want to end online anonymity – even if it does leave us a little more exposed online and, though not my objective, destroys Reddit.

Preventing cybercrime is not the main reason why people like to remain anonymous online (again, if that were true, why would anyone be using Facebook?). Many people have really good reasons for wanting to be anonymous online, having to do with not revealing details of their personal life. Want to have a discussion about surviving rape? Maybe you don't want to blast that out to the public. Hell, want to have a discussion about being stalked online? Perhaps not the best thing to put your name out there in public, right? Or what if you're criticizing a boss? Or whistleblowing? Or questioning anyone who has authority to make your life miserable?

Ulanoff lives in a privileged world where apparently he can't ever imagine needing to speak truth to power (this is a reporter?!?) or where he might want to be able to discuss things personally without everyone in the world knowing about it. Lucky him. Most of the world is not so lucky.

We need to shut down online anonymity and stop confusing it with privacy. The answer to protecting yourself online is not to be someone else and please do not talk to me about online identity as if it’s some fluid thing to be protected. If you officially change your name, your address, your email, your phone number, please, by all means, change it online. “FunkyDawg” is not your identity. It’s a handle.

On virtually all of my social accounts, I am “LanceUlanoff.” Granted, I’ve built a tiny online brand around my name, but I’ve also found this transparency much easier to manage than a bunch of random handles and identities. It also keeps me honest. I am accountable for the things I post on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Again, this is because you're in a position of privilege where you don't need to go in search of people to talk to about how your parents beat you. Or you don't need to find a community to talk to about coming out. Or about finding a new job. There are all sorts of reasons why anonymity matters, and Ulanoff doesn't seem to have considered any of them. And they're not just the "extreme" cases of rape or sexual orientation or things like that either. There are lots of reasons why people might not want to reveal their personal interests or hobbies. What if all of your co-workers are staunch Republicans and you secretly support Hillary Clinton? What if you don't really want the world to know that you are the world's most knowledgeable expert on the TV sitcom Taxi? It could be anything. Maybe you like steamy romance novels and you think your friends would make fun of you for that. Maybe you think hockey is a stupid sport, but all your friends are really into it. Not everyone's life is an open book, nor should it be. There are lots of reasons we don't reveal everything about us, and it takes quite a lot of ignorance to assume that just because you happen to live in a comfy situation where your life is an open book that everyone else's should be as well.

Even if sites like Reddit continue to allow members to hide behind screen names, they should know, in the Reddit system, who they are: Full name, age, birthdate and maybe even address. If Reddit does this, it will not only cut down the number of attacks, it will likely scrub Reddit of much of its disgusting, hateful and racist content. It might also help the site, assuming it survives, monetize more activity than it is now.

Again, this is a total myth. Facebook has much of that info and yet all sorts of hate and attacks happen on Facebook all the time. Ulanoff can't seem to get over his initial conflation of "anonymity" with "bad behavior." There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but it's nowhere near as complete as he seems to think it is. Also, if Reddit has that info, then it's at risk. Notice all those hacks and data leaks lately? How safe will the woman seeking help to leave her abusive husband feel knowing that some hackers might leak her name and address at any moment?

None of this, by the way, should hamper “Free Speech” on Reddit.

Yes, actually it will. A ton. Because all those people who would like to feel comfortable discussing things in such settings will go away. The Supreme Court itself has made it clear that anonymity is a key part of free speech. Ulanoff should familiarize himself with some of its statements, such as:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

And yet, Ulanoff ridiculously thinks that he's the one protecting people from an "intolerant society" because he's too ignorant and too privileged to recognize all those people who rely on anonymity.

Oh, and then he closes it out with his own, incorrect, definition of the First Amendment:

I know that most of the members who hated Pao and wanted her out were angry about the necessary changes she was making and they often decried her actions as an attack on free speech. Sorry, but, in my book, hate speech does not equal free speech.

In your book it may not, but under the Constitution it does. That does not mean, of course, that Reddit needs to put up with hate speech. That's a decision for the company to make on its own. But Ulanoff's argument here is so confused as to be laughable. It's like a high school student who just discovered these issues and didn't bother to do any research before spouting off his opinion.

The facts are pretty clear: anonymous speech is incredibly important in protecting free speech, mostly in protecting people from harassment or risks. It is a key tool that allows people who are facing difficult situations to find each other and discuss. On top of that, most content from anonymous individuals online is perfectly reasonable and fits within community norms. Finally, requiring real names has never been shown to adequately limit trollish behavior. So Ulanoff is spouting off an idea that puts more people at risk, limits communities that need such connections the most and does nothing to actually stop trollish behavior.

If, however, these Reddit members really believe it is their right to harass, spew hate and post their insane ideas about various races, then do it without the mask of a user name. Put your real name and photo on the site. Stand up for what you believe in, you bastards.

Again the ignorance and the privilege shine through. Ulanoff can't imagine a world in which anyone would say something anonymously unless they're being a "bastard." You'd think that someone who has spent as much time online as Ulanoff apparently has would at least know enough to do some basic research, or at least talk to some people who actually do rely on anonymity every day.

from the the-algorithms-did-it dept

Another day, another big tech company doing things wrong. Matthew Lush is apparently a super popular YouTuber, who has been on the platform since 2005 (yes, a decade ago). His YouTube name was "Lush" which makes sense, given that's his name. But along comes Lush Cosmetics, and YouTube apparently just hands his channel over to the company. That's ridiculous enough, but it gets even more bizarre, when reporters asked Google to explain:

Google said it was "sympathetic" to Mr Lush's situation and that the decision was made by an algorithm.

Oh, come on. Yes, Google pointing to its algorithm making decisions makes sense when it comes to issues at scale around things like search results. But blaming taking away someone's username on an algorithm just seems ridiculous.

And then there's this:

[Lush Cometics] told the BBC it had not requested the change but would not say if it would give the address back.

Okay. So let's just work through this:

Matthew Lush registers his YouTube name "Lush" in 2005.

He spends years building up a massive following.

A decade later, a cosmetic company that did not ask for it is simply given Matthew Lush's popular YouTube username, based on "an algorithm" deciding this.

And Google insists there's no way to fix this.

Really? Yes, I know some people fear that science-fiction future in which the giant AI in the sky makes algorithmic decisions about what's best for us ("I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"), but I hadn't thought we were quite there yet. Because we're not.

It seems likely that what's missing from the BBC story is that there was some sort of naming conflict brought on by the various attemps to shift around YouTube naming conventions, integrate it with Google+ and all of that. In the end, there was probably some sort of conflict with two "Lush" usernames, and Google's "algorithms" gave the account to the cosmetics company instead. At least that's my interpretation of this statement:

Google said its algorithm decided which address Lush Cosmetics was given, based on data from YouTube, Google+, its search engine and other sources.

But if that's the case, at the very last, Google could be a lot clearer and upfront about it. And it seems to be a mess brought on by the company's own decisions about its username conventions. To play it off as just "well, those nutty algorithms again, nothing can be done" seems pretty ridiculous.

Her namesake may be able to travel across galaxies in Star Wars, but Laura Matthews from Southend – whose middle name is Skywalker – isn't even able to get on a budget airline to the Med.

The 29-year-old added the middle name by deed poll in 2008, "for a bit of a laugh", and recently tried to renew her passport, complete with her new name and the signature L. Skywalker. Her application was refused, with the Home Office telling her it "will not recognise a change to a name which is subject to copyright or trademark".

Seeing as copyright and trademark law has nothing to do with security and/or a person's ability to travel, it's a bit odd that the passport office would be so concerned about George Lucas' intellectual property -- a stock farmboy character transplanted to a stock good v. evil storyline set in a futuristic past. After all, as Laura Skywalker points out, no other government agency has expressed a concern about her legally-changed name.

In the spirit of compromise hastened by a disgruntled would-be traveler and a bunch of negative press, the passport office is trying to work out a way to let this Skywalker board aircraft. The fix suggested is the most bureaucratic solution, involving Matthews submitting passport paperwork with her old non-Skywalker signature and being allowed to keep the new one featuring the now-famous "L. Skywalker" scrawl, which will result in duplicated paperwork that doesn't match the current passport and will likely subject Matthews to additional scrutiny from watchful and confused customs officials in the future. Never forget: the government exists mainly to generate paperwork and performing this useless maneuver satisfies that requirement.

Still, it must be asked why customs is so damn adamant that no one violate the sanctity of intellectual property with spur-of-the-moment name changes. Granted, the agency acts as a buffer between nations by vetting travelers (and their counterfeit goods), but its objective should be safety, rather than acting as guardians against the secondary liability caused by the movement of an "infringing" name across borders. Also granted, the most powerful name in intellectual property -- Disney -- now "owns" Skywalker and other associated Star Wars IP. The mere speculation that the corporation would mobilize its army of IP lawyers has been enough to shut down productions clearly covered by fair use.

We're often accused of being some sort of IP-obsessives here at Techdirt when calling out others for their inability to tell their patents from their copyrights, but the true obsessives are those who man the borders and look for potentially-infringing names.

from the leaked-birth-certificate-confirms! dept

One of the great unwritten rules of parenthood is that the right to name your offspring should be treated as a privilege. The temptation is to give the child a "unique" name that sets him or her as far apart for his/her eventual peers as humanly possible, thus living up to the common parental delusion that each child is its own special flower, unlike the millions born before it or after it.

Unfortunately, a "unique" name is often just an unwieldy name, if not simply embarrassing. And the unlucky child has to bear that clumsy moniker until he or she hits the legal paperwork-filing age and changes it to something that won't trigger an inadvertent laugh from college staff and potential employers. The intervening years will pass excruciatingly slowly as the child awkwardly orbits his peers like a gatecrasher at a menage a trois, trying desperately to find somewhere to fit in. This is generally made worse by the "unique" parents, who somehow view intense shunning as more "evidence" of their child's one-in-a-million qualities.

Hajar Hamalaw wanted to name his son, who was born on March 14th, after the online whistleblowing platform as it “changed the world”, the Passauer Neue Presse reported.

But the 28-year-old failed to get the name past authorities in Passau, Bavaria.

Hamalaw's heart is in the right place, at least in terms of having a decent reason to name his new child "Wikileaks." But first he had to convince local officials, which went just about as well as could be expected from any place where newborns' names get run past local officials.

But Wikileaks did not make it onto the birth certificate. "The registrar said that this was not a first name. He thought it was a series or TV show," said Hamalaw.

Beyond the out-of-touch registrar, there's another rule on the books that keeps Passau parents from saddling their offspring with ridiculous names.

A spokesperson for the town of Passau said the decision by the registry office was based on legal rulings which state a child’s name should not be granted if it could endanger their welfare.

I don't agree that any government entity should keep you from naming your child whatever you want, but if you're going to have a stupid rule like this, at least have one that looks out for the child's best interests. When "Dako" (the "Plan B" name, apparently) hits legal age, he'll have the option to change his name to "Wikileaks" or "Full Metal Havok More Sexy N Intelligent Than Spock And All The Superheroes Combined With Frostnova" if he'd like and no one, not even a person who thinks "Wikileaks" went downhill after its third season, will be able to stop him. But until then, he's got several years of pre- and post-pubescent awkwardness to live through that will have nothing at all to do with his father's love for leaked documents.

from the who's-hiding-what? dept

Last Friday, Aaron Swartz's lawyers asked the court that had been overseeing his case to lift a protective order on material submitted during discovery, which Swartz's family and lawyers say will help show how bogus the case against him was -- and which they've hinted will show how MIT went way too far in trying to help prosecutors go after Swartz. According to exchanges between Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, and MIT staff (including MIT President Rafael Reif), MIT has argued that such documents should not be revealed because (a) it might violate the privacy of MIT employees and (b) because MIT never intended the info to be public. Peters discovered this after a reporter for the Wall Street Journal forwarded him the following statement from MIT:

The decision to lift the protective order rests with the judge who put it in place.
Documents provided by MIT in the Swartz case included individual names and
information regarding MIT employees. It is MIT policy and practice to protect
employee privacy. MIT provided the documents under the express understanding
that they would be protected from disclosure, which is the purpose of the
protective order. Given this, we are concerned about any public release of
information about individual MIT employees: we will seek to protect their
privacy. At the same time, MIT is eager to share important facts about its actions
in the Aaron Swartz matter with the public: Professor Hal Abelson has been
charged by President Rafael Reif with conducting an analysis that will be made
public in the coming weeks.

Peters, quite reasonably, found this statement to be absurd. Especially the part about MIT claiming that it provided the documents in the belief that they would be kept secret. As Peters noted in response, this was obviously untrue.

"This statement is an insult to my intelligence. The documents were provided to the government before any protective
order was entered, and directly contrary to this statement, with the express understanding that they would be used in a
criminal prosecution', which would lead to a PUBLIC TRIAL, at which time the documents would be offered into evidence
and the witnesses would testify, in public. MIT never could have expected these materials not to become public, and I
find this statement to be shockingly misleading and insincere."

Around this same time, the Congressional investigation into Swartz's prosecution requested the same information. Given that, Swartz's legal team met with the DOJ to discuss releasing the documents currently under protective order. They agreed to redact certain personal information (phone numbers, emails, home addresses, social security numbers, birthdays), as well as the names of four people who were questioned during the investigation, but who "were not actively involved in either the Government's or any institution's investigation" into Swartz. However, where the conversations broke down was over redacting the names and info of just about everyone else: law enforcement, MIT employees and JSTOR employees.

Swartz's lawyer argues that this information should be public and if the case had gone forward would have been public:

As described above, the circumstances in this case have changed dramatically. Perhaps
most obviously, with Mr. Swartz's death, there is no longer a case to prosecute and thus no
danger that disclosure will impede a fair trial. Mr. Swartz's tragic death has also led to an
increase in public interest in both the details of the investigation and prosecution and the
reasonableness of prosecutions under the CFAA generally. In its discussions with Mr. Swartz's
counsel about modifying the Protective Order, the Government has not, to date, asserted any
reliance interest based on the Protective Order. Even if it were to assert such an interest, any
Government reliance on the Protective Order's terms is tempered by the fact that it is a blanket
order and therefore inherently overinclusive. As this District explained in Bulger, modification
of such a blanket order is not unusual. Id. at 54. As a result, the only interest left to be balanced
against the significant public interest in access to unredacted documents is the alleged privacy
interest of the government employees and third party individuals named in the discovery
materials. For the reasons discussed below, those interests are minimal and are overcome by the
public interest in the disclosure of these documents.

They further note that hiding the names of those actually responsible will make the Congressional investigation into what happened much more difficult. Second, the information was provided initially without any expectation that this info would be kept private, so to ask for it to be kept private now makes little sense. In fact, they note that most of the people named, who the government and MIT wish to redact, were likely potential witnesses had the trial been able to move forward. "Consequently, MIT and JSTOR cannot now claim any reliance interest on behalf of their employees in the continued privacy of their emails at the time they produced the emails at issue to the government." They further point out that most of the names in question are already public and highlight press accounts and previous releases of documents in the case that specifically name: "MIT employees Dave Newman, Paul Acosta, Ellen
Duranceau, Ann Wolpert, Mike Halsall, and Mark Sillis and JSTOR employee Brian Larsen,
identifies their positions, and quotes their email communications." Given that this is already public, it seems odd to further seek to redact their participation.

The argument in the other direction is that the attention this case has received means that names of such folks might lead to threats, but Swartz's lawyer says there has been no evidence presented of any threats to MIT or JSTOR employees -- and even if there was, that wouldn't necessitate blocking out info on all such employees.

Separately, his lawyers point out that redacting law enforcement officials names makes even less sense, given that they are public employees.

Days after this motion was filed, MIT "responded" by agreeing to release the documents itself... but with those same redactions requested by the DOJ. MIT President Reif has tried to spin this as being "in the spirit of openness, balanced with responsibility." Of course, that doesn't make much sense. The DOJ has already agreed that this same level of information should be released, so MIT isn't doing anything here other than making it appear -- falsely -- as if it is making some concession towards openness. On top of that, MIT has said it will not release this info until its overall investigation is over.

Not surprisingly, Swartz's family is not particularly impressed by all of this. In a statement provided to us, Swartz's girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, notes that this is misleading not just because MIT isn't doing anything new here, but also in that this isn't MIT's decision at all.

“I welcome President Reif's commitment to transparency. However, this announcement is misleading. MIT does not get to decide in what form the evidence is released publicly. The judge does. MIT has already given this evidence to the courts, at which point it gave up proprietary control over the evidence. President Reif's decision simply foreshadows the inevitability that the judge will release at least this much of the evidence. It sets a low bar, but it does not decide the matter. The redacted documents MIT is releasing only tell one part of the story. Huge amounts of information would still be hidden beneath the protective order -- information that MIT's investigators themselves will not have access to unless the protective order is lifted. If MIT is really committed to transparency and having a full, complete investigation, they need to join the call with Aaron’s lawyers to lift the protective order."

Similarly, Aaron's father, Robert Swartz, noted that this is not a concession by MIT, and that MIT already gave up its rights to these documents, so trying to control how they are disseminated makes little sense.

"This is not a change in MIT's position. MIT could have no expectation of privacy or security since this evidence was given to the government with the understanding that it was evidence in a public trial,” said Robert Swartz, Aaron’s father. “They understood when they gave these documents to the government that they had no rights to privacy or security. MIT should release all internal communications related to this case whether or not they were provided to the government including all internal communications they had related to how they handled it and decided not to ask the government to drop the case."

Stinebrickner-Kauffman also pointed out that "if MIT wished to protect these people's privacy, MIT should not have become involved in the criminal trial to begin with. They made a calculated decision not to nip this case in the bud. They don't get to avoid the consequences now, after Aaron’s death."

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are plenty of marketing gurus who will advise company founders to choose names and logos very carefully -- making sure to avoid confusing names or names without the appropriate gravitas. Then again, there are several companies with names that break the rules.

from the one-step-forward-two-steps-back dept

In a not all together surprising move, Netflix announced its plans to kill Qwikster. It cites a backlash from consumers over the plan to separate the DVD and streaming services into two brands with separate websites. The whole raking over the coals it got from the media probably didn't help its plans, either. So before it even had a chance to live, Qwikster is dead. However (not surprisingly), Netflix plans to retain its current pricing model.

What this development really reeks of is a strong disconnect between Netflix and its customers. These are moves of a company focused on how to best benefit itself, not how to best benefit its customers. Based on the overall reaction to the price change and the service split, it looks like Netflix never took into account what its customers would think or how they would react to the change. Instead, it focused on its own situation first, and then retroactively tried to spin it in terms of how it might benefit consumers. Had it taken the time to objectively think about and plan for customer reaction rather than looking out for its own interests, it could have prevented all this bad publicity and retained many of the customers it lost. Hopefully, Netflix will take this folly as a learning opportunity and make positive changes to its business philosophy and customer relations.

from the perhaps-annoying-ex-football-qb-is-a-better-name? dept

A few weeks ago we wrote about how actor Kevin Spacey had his lawyers get threatening over an album from the band Cassettes Won't Listen, because the album was called "Kevinspacey." To deal with this, the band changed the album name to Evinspacey. Now Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to a similar story, in which former Denver Bronco's star quarterback John Elway has had his lawyers send a letter to the punk band Elway, demanding that the band change its name (though, the band claims that it wasn't a "cease and desist" letter). The band, apparently, isn't giving in that easily:

Of course, any Coloradoan worth their salt might point out the absurdity of Mr. Elway's insistence on legally strongarming a virtually unknown punk band rather than focusing his attention on mending the badly broken Denver Broncos, but that's a whole different issue.

We have no intention of changing the name again. We love the name, regardless of what connotations are inferred by the listener. Surely, if the Dead Kennedys could become one of punk's most popular bands without incurring litigation, Elway can keep their moniker and continue making so-so music for our dozens of fans to enjoy

Your move, John.

Of course, this trend kind of makes you wonder if more and more bands are naming themselves or their albums after celebrities in an attempt to get a publicity boost from any potential legal shenanigans.

from the free-speech-anyone? dept

Steven sent over a story out of Australia, where the guy accused of a triple murder (an adult couple and their 16-year-old daughter), has had his name "suppressed" by the court, in an effort to keep the jury from pre-judging the guy. However, before that could happen, the guy's name got out and quickly spread all over Facebook, leading some to claim that this is Facebook's fault:

"Because Facebook is such an interactive site there could be tens of thousands of people who have access to the name," barrister Craig Caldicott said.

"It may have a huge impact on justice because a potential juror may have access to that information and opinions that have been published.

"Facebook are in breach of the suppression order -- it's the company who put it out there."

Frankly, almost nothing Caldicott says here makes sense to me, other than the fact that many people might have access to the name. However, I honestly don't see how the name would have impact on justice. A potential juror could know everything about the case -- three people stabbed in their home, etc. -- without knowing the guy's name. How would knowing or not knowing his name make any difference at all? Separately, it's not Facebook that put the information out there, but the users, people in the community who wanted to share that information. The information is effectively public information, and it's silly to then blame a company, because its users are spreading information that is already widely known.

Another oddity in the story is the news that the victims' family had to spend time asking Facebook to take down the name:

Mourning family members and memorial page administrators spent the afternoon trying to delete all references to the man, but his name was public knowledge well before his court appearance.

I don't understand why they should be doing this at all. The name is out there -- and you'd almost think they'd like the name to be out there, rather than trying to hide it. I guess they're afraid that it will negatively impact the trial, but again, I'm at a loss for how the name makes any difference if people already know the actual details of the murder.

from the modern-problems dept

Nearly five years ago, we wondered what would happen when the generation that grew up with the internet and social media started running for office. The idea was that when you're kids, you often do silly things that you regret later in life. In the past, those things fade away as memories. However, these days, many of them are now recorded for posterity and easily findable on a search engine. We've wondered if this will lead more people to brush off youthful indiscretions, but there's another possibility as well. Perhaps it will become more standard for kids to change their names as they reach adulthood. That, at least, is the suggestion made by Eric Schmidt in discussing how society hasn't yet come to grips with a world in which so much data is recorded and available. Of course, it's a pretty simple database mapping to link one to the other, so I do wonder whether or not that really makes a difference for other than the most basic of searches.

Still, I often find these discussions by adults to be a bit condescending towards kids. Yes, kids do all sorts of silly things, some of which they may regret later, it's not as if everything they do is regrettable. On top of that, I tend to believe kids are a lot smarter than many adults make them out to be. While there may be many things that make adults cringe, I would bet a lot more kids understand what they should avoid doing online than adults give them credit for.